RE: Vulnerability-based IPS Patent

["Richard M. Smith" <rms () bsf-llc com>]

Be interested to hear what you can dig up.  Virus Guard would have had to
ship before Sept. 29, 1991 to be considered prior art.  Had it shipped
between 9/29/1991 and 9/29/1992 things are more murky.  In addition, it's
functionality would have to match up with all the patent claims.

Richard 

-----Original Message-----
From: Drsolly [mailto:drsollyp () drsolly com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 6:01 PM
To: Richard M. Smith
Cc: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: RE: [funsec] Vulnerability-based IPS Patent

On Wed, 29 Mar 2006, Richard M. Smith wrote:

> Drsolly,
>
> > > > I *know* what was in Dr Solomon's Antivirus Toolkit :-)
>
> Are you (or anyone else) aware of prior art for this AV patent:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/39ntx
>
> Patent 5,319,776
> In transit detection of computer virus with safeguard
>
> Abstract
>
> Data is tested in transit between a source medium and a destination 
> medium, such as between two computer communicating over a 
> telecommunications link or network. Each character of the incoming 
> data stream is tested using a finite state machine which is capable of 
> testing against multiple search strings representing the signatures of 
> multiple known computer viruses. When a virus is detected the incoming 
> data is prevented from remaining on the destination storage medium. Both
hardware and software implementations are envisioned.
 
> Filed:  September 29, 1992
 
> Symantec seems to own the patent now:
>
> Symantec Buys Key Security Technology Patent, Records First Quarter 
> Charge http://symantec.co.uk/press/2003/n030818a.html
>
> Richard
 
Ah, the Hilgraeve patent, I remember that. I think Virus Guard (a TSR
scanner) was previous to September 1992. I'd have to check back on old
versions of the Toolkit to find out when we shipped it. I do remember that
they wrote to us about 10 years ago suggesting that we might like to licence
their patent, and we told them "No thank you", because we thought at the
time that they'd have no claim. I don't think they took it any further at
that time, so maybe they agreed with our opinion, or thought it wasn't worth
disputing.

Interesting sentence "Both hardware and software implementations are
envisioned."; I'm pretty sure they didn't have an antivirus at the time, so
they were patenting an idea, not an implementation.


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.